At 7:05 Aaron says "The one sidechain we have..." Currently there are three production bitcoin sidechains. Listed in chronological order of mainnet launch date: Rootstock, Liquid, and Nomic
@@Ryan-xq3kl Lightning is a state channel protocol, not a sidechain. State channel protocols use local state (only participants to a tx are aware of and validate state transitions) whereas sidechains use global state (all users of the sidechain are aware of and validate state transitions).
Just use digibyte as a side chain? Full UTXO interoperability with bitcoin and it has 3 layers that utilize op-codes for assets and applications. Digiasset nodes
That's not how a side chain works a side chain needs to derive it's state from a main chain, two intersecting layer one blockchains communicating to each-other is not a standardized practice yet because fundamental guarantees are radically different across protocol implementations.
Thank you all as always!!! This is great!! I have to step away and will edit my post accordingly if my concerns are addressed later in the video. But, my concern is that introducing any Altcoin aspects to the Bitcoin network is asking for trouble. Again, I will watch the rest of the video asap. Take care, everyone 👍🏾 Ciao
Adam or Paul why not join the UTXO alliance? Bitcoin can remain a UTXO it doesn’t need to become an EMV. Atomic Dex is a great tool for Blockchains to communicate with each other. Komodo and Cosmos just created a bridge which builds an even bigger network of networks.
I’ll have to watch the video again so that I can clarify on what exactly I commented on and maybe I should have done that in the first place. The UTXO Alliance is made up of different UTXO blockchains that are focusing on improving the UTXO model through interoperability, programmability and scalability. Some people assume that all blockchains are the same and do the same things. UTXOs don’t have the same capabilities as VMs such as Turing complete or incompleteness. Bitcoin can always be an electronic payment system, however, it’s being used more as a store of value. In that case it doesn’t need to run applications like a VM. As for people who want to do cross network payments there are atomic swaps, I was using Komodo and Cosmos recent bridge as an example of cross network communication and building a more robust network of different networks. I think Adam and Paul had different ideas on solving some of the issues discussed in this interview. Check out the UTXO alliance and see if that’s not a viable option.
@@bahmak2003 lol I’m not an investor, I’m more interested in the technology and the solutions it brings. I like what Cosmos is doing but I don’t use their blockchain or network. I’m a fan of open source project, that utilize the UTXO model of account secured by PoW. There’s a lot of innovation happening with blockchain technology, just look at the direction it’s headed in-it’s revolutionizing major industries. IMO Bitcoin BTC should participate as a member in the UTXO-Alliance.
MWEB would allow for Confidential Transactions on Bitcoin through Extension Blocks. It has been implemented on Litecoin, AND you don’t have to rely on a FEDERATION of companies. To join this federation, the members of the federation review your application. Sounds too centralized for my taste. Too much of a trade off.
i don't think it's realistic to see a change that big ever make its way into Bitcoin in the near future. The appeal of Paul's approach is that it would be a very small change, compared to things like taproot, that would enable a new ecosystem of Bitcoin projects. A change like that would give Bitcoiners a choice in what technological tradeoffs they'd like while still capitalizing on the hash rate and security of the main chain. Edit: Changed the phrasing to read clearer
@@Matt-ie3os LBTC is a different thing entirely from what Paul is proposing. Also, I agree LBTC is more centralized compared to other chains but I believe there's a space for it as well amongst all the sidechains to Bitcoin that could exist in the future
Sidechains are cancer. The methods used to get the price of Bitcoin on these chains is defective. It's similar to stablecoins trying to peg to 1 USD, they always fail because of the way they try to achieve that peg. We have seen pegged Bitcoins fail to maintain the correct price, we have seen pegged Bitcoins mint as many tokens as they want regardless of the actual cap.
@@chrismale9976 let me guess, you watched a poorly executed documentary on Netflix that said he was. Here's my research: I was in this market before Back showed up in 2013. He dismissed it previously until it $1000USD for the first time. THEN he was all about it. Maybe you need to do your own research. He's cited in the original whitepaper among others, but was not interested in the project when Satoshi reached out. The truth is out there, go find it for yourself.
I guess you're unfamiliar with asset issuance protocols like Omni, Counterparty, Taro, and OpenAssets? (all protocols built on bitcoin with hundreds of new assets that have been issued)
Sztorc: “…run your drug empire…have a coffee…” and he’s mystified why his BTC side-chain didn’t get traction. Exactly the ignorance legacy control structures salivate over.
Your comment is INCREDIBLY ignorant, he was mentioning the difference between types of transactions and that someone who is dealing coffee is not at the same risk after fund loss as someone dealing drugs. And the fact that often different people share the same types of transactions so the drug dealer will want coffee sometimes and sometimes the citizen who usually buys coffee will want to buy drugs. There is inherently more risk buying or selling drugs than coffee that is literally the point.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
At 7:05 Aaron says "The one sidechain we have..."
Currently there are three production bitcoin sidechains. Listed in chronological order of mainnet launch date: Rootstock, Liquid, and Nomic
Lightning is also a side chain is it not?
@@Ryan-xq3kl Lightning is a state channel protocol, not a sidechain. State channel protocols use local state (only participants to a tx are aware of and validate state transitions) whereas sidechains use global state (all users of the sidechain are aware of and validate state transitions).
Thank you for clarifying this!
Its coming to Litecoin probably summer 2024.
Sounds like we're doing the drivechain
Dr Adam Back.... Satoshi himself at the conference! He is always the man to listen to.
He's not Satoshi.
@@aceseling That's exactly what he wants you to believe.
@@aceseling he is
This might be the funniest comment on the internet
@@arbo3495 oh you sweet summer child. He's simply not.
Thanks to the host Aaron for clarifying concisely the subject matter
These guys are cool😊
Cardano eUTXO side chain is the way to go for Bitcoin.
absolute LOL no one wants to onboard a censorship enforcing unregulated security chain
Just use digibyte as a side chain? Full UTXO interoperability with bitcoin and it has 3 layers that utilize op-codes for assets and applications. Digiasset nodes
That's not how a side chain works a side chain needs to derive it's state from a main chain, two intersecting layer one blockchains communicating to each-other is not a standardized practice yet because fundamental guarantees are radically different across protocol implementations.
Thank you all as always!!! This is great!!
I have to step away and will edit my post accordingly if my concerns are addressed later in the video.
But, my concern is that introducing any Altcoin aspects to the Bitcoin network is asking for trouble.
Again, I will watch the rest of the video asap. Take care, everyone 👍🏾
Ciao
pro Bip 300, make it happen pleeeease
Adam or Paul why not join the UTXO alliance? Bitcoin can remain a UTXO it doesn’t need to become an EMV. Atomic Dex is a great tool for Blockchains to communicate with each other. Komodo and Cosmos just created a bridge which builds an even bigger network of networks.
Not sure you know what you are typing about.
I’ll have to watch the video again so that I can clarify on what exactly I commented on and maybe I should have done that in the first place. The UTXO Alliance is made up of different UTXO blockchains that are focusing on improving the UTXO model through interoperability, programmability and scalability. Some people assume that all blockchains are the same and do the same things. UTXOs don’t have the same capabilities as VMs such as Turing complete or incompleteness. Bitcoin can always be an electronic payment system, however, it’s being used more as a store of value. In that case it doesn’t need to run applications like a VM. As for people who want to do cross network payments there are atomic swaps, I was using Komodo and Cosmos recent bridge as an example of cross network communication and building a more robust network of different networks. I think Adam and Paul had different ideas on solving some of the issues discussed in this interview. Check out the UTXO alliance and see if that’s not a viable option.
Lol you just a cosmos bagholder! 😂😂😂😂😂
@@bahmak2003 lol I’m not an investor, I’m more interested in the technology and the solutions it brings. I like what Cosmos is doing but I don’t use their blockchain or network. I’m a fan of open source project, that utilize the UTXO model of account secured by PoW. There’s a lot of innovation happening with blockchain technology, just look at the direction it’s headed in-it’s revolutionizing major industries. IMO Bitcoin BTC should participate as a member in the UTXO-Alliance.
"Why side chain"?
MWEB would allow for Confidential Transactions on Bitcoin through Extension Blocks. It has been implemented on Litecoin, AND you don’t have to rely on a FEDERATION of companies. To join this federation, the members of the federation review your application. Sounds too centralized for my taste. Too much of a trade off.
i don't think it's realistic to see a change that big ever make its way into Bitcoin in the near future. The appeal of Paul's approach is that it would be a very small change, compared to things like taproot, that would enable a new ecosystem of Bitcoin projects. A change like that would give Bitcoiners a choice in what technological tradeoffs they'd like while still capitalizing on the hash rate and security of the main chain.
Edit: Changed the phrasing to read clearer
@@y4550 I think WBTC would be more decentralized and tested than LBTC, and I don't like Ethereum.
@@Matt-ie3os LBTC is a different thing entirely from what Paul is proposing. Also, I agree LBTC is more centralized compared to other chains but I believe there's a space for it as well amongst all the sidechains to Bitcoin that could exist in the future
@@y4550 Only those who would benefit from Bitcoin not scaling Layer 1 to allow people to self-custody (Blockstream, Square, etc) would agree.
Sidechains are cancer. The methods used to get the price of Bitcoin on these chains is defective. It's similar to stablecoins trying to peg to 1 USD, they always fail because of the way they try to achieve that peg. We have seen pegged Bitcoins fail to maintain the correct price, we have seen pegged Bitcoins mint as many tokens as they want regardless of the actual cap.
Satoshi himself Adam Back
Wrong
@@aceseling Do some research
@@chrismale9976 let me guess, you watched a poorly executed documentary on Netflix that said he was. Here's my research: I was in this market before Back showed up in 2013. He dismissed it previously until it $1000USD for the first time. THEN he was all about it. Maybe you need to do your own research. He's cited in the original whitepaper among others, but was not interested in the project when Satoshi reached out. The truth is out there, go find it for yourself.
@@adams8485 Of course it wasn't Adam Back. Bitcoin was given to the World by God. Mmmmmm.
@@markpalmer8083 which God, Kronos?
Please don't let BTC become a cesspool of shitcoins like ETH
I guess you're unfamiliar with asset issuance protocols like Omni, Counterparty, Taro, and OpenAssets? (all protocols built on bitcoin with hundreds of new assets that have been issued)
There is no "LET" involved, ETH was DESIGNED to host shitcoins bitcoin is designed for decentralized money.
Sztorc: “…run your drug empire…have a coffee…” and he’s mystified why his BTC side-chain didn’t get traction. Exactly the ignorance legacy control structures salivate over.
Your comment is INCREDIBLY ignorant, he was mentioning the difference between types of transactions and that someone who is dealing coffee is not at the same risk after fund loss as someone dealing drugs. And the fact that often different people share the same types of transactions so the drug dealer will want coffee sometimes and sometimes the citizen who usually buys coffee will want to buy drugs. There is inherently more risk buying or selling drugs than coffee that is literally the point.